The High Court refused the Attorney General’s application to commit Sergiu Gindea for extradition to Moldova, finding substantial grounds to believe he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if surrendered.
Mr Justice Paul Burns delivered judgment on 20 December 2021. The application sought Mr Gindea’s surrender to face prosecution on one Moldovan fraud count. The alleged offence carries a maximum sentence of between eight and 15 years in Moldova. The court said the equivalent offence in Ireland was deception under section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
The alleged fraud concerned a property in Ialoveni. The indictment alleged that Mr Gindea transferred ownership of the property in return for a loan equivalent to €22,000, then, knowing the property did not belong to him, agreed to sell it to [G.P.] and received the equivalent of €34,000. These remain allegations; the extradition hearing did not determine guilt.
Mr Gindea conceded the formal proofs for the request but challenged whether the alleged conduct corresponded to an Irish offence and argued that surrender would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment and interfere with his private and family life. The judge rejected the correspondence objection, finding that the indictment alleged deception by holding himself out as the property’s owner. The private and family life objection was recorded, but the judgment’s operative refusal rested on the Article 3 prison-risk finding.
The court considered reports describing overcrowding, poor physical conditions and inter-prisoner violence in Moldovan prisons, including at Penitentiary 13 in Chisinau, where the evidence indicated Mr Gindea would initially be held. Moldova gave assurances about his accommodation, personal space, safety, hygiene and access to basic services. The judge accepted that assurances could be considered, but found the evidence supporting their reliability inadequate. The court also noted that a previous assurance had been breached in another case and that the Moldovan authorities had provided no details of monitoring systems or remedies for any breach.
Mr Justice Burns concluded that the evidence established significant, widespread and ongoing deficiencies in Moldova’s prison system and that the assurances did not allay the identified risk. He therefore refused the extradition application. He said the decision was not a permanent bar: a future application could be reconsidered if Moldova took effective remedial steps and presented cogent, objective evidence, or demonstrated an effective system for ensuring compliance with assurances.